HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Estimates Committees

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (10:33): I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A and move:

That the report be received.

Motion carried.

Ms THOMPSON: I bring up the minutes of proceedings of Estimates Committee A and move:

That the minutes of proceedings be incorporated in the votes and proceedings.

Motion carried.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (10:33): I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B and move:

That the report be received.

Motion carried.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I bring up the minutes of proceedings of Estimates Committee B and move:

That the minutes of proceedings be incorporated in the votes and proceedings.

Motion carried.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (10:34): I move:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (10:33): It has been an interesting budget estimates. As the bill (the budget) comes out of committee, there is rise for considerable concern both in the house but more broadly across the community. We have had doctors resigning en masse and, it appears, a government unable to adequately pay them. We have had thousands of teachers demonstrating on the steps of Parliament House about their conditions of employment and their negotiations with their employer, the current state Labor government. We have a country health system facing the most radical cuts we have seen in decades, if ever, and a government which, although it is awash with revenue, is clearly having trouble meeting its expenses and controlling them.

A number of revelations have come from cabinet about unmet savings, about the way in which the government is managing its debt and investments, about failures within the families and communities portfolio, about issues within Attorney-General and the underfunding of our courts, about the way in which the environment is being managed and funded, and about the way in which the health and education systems are being failed.

Let me go over some of the details. I do not intend to hold the house long; we have had a response to the budget already. I will try to focus on the issues that have arisen through estimates. We know that on two of three normally used accounting measures the budget is in deficit—quite a considerable deficit compared with previous years. We know (and it has been confirmed through estimates) that the government has decided to go into considerable debt, despite the fact that by 2011-12 revenues will be approaching $15 billion, having been just over $8 billion when the government first came to office.

The question was asked during estimates: how on earth, with that amount of revenue, do you find yourself having to go to borrow such an extraordinary amount, in fact, around $5.2 billion by 2011-12? Well, the facts are that estimates have revealed that our investments have not been going very well—over half a billion dollars worth of losses with the current shake-out from Funds SA, from the Motor Accident Commission and from WorkCover. There was trouble extracting the exact figures, but it is clear that it is in the many, many hundreds of millions of dollars.

We have also found, of course, that the government has struggled to meet its savings targets. On questioning about Shared Services and RISTEC initiatives from the 2008-09 budget committees and the Budget and Finance Committee, we have found that many of the savings will not be met.

The 2006-07 budget advised of Shared Services savings of $130 million. It was to be $25 million in 2007-08, $45 million in 2008-09 and $60 million from 2009-10 onwards and would involve total implementation costs of around $60 million from 2007-08 to 2009-10.

I am trying not to die here. I am choking to death (although the government may urge me on in that regard), and I blame my 3½ year old's cold for my throat at the moment.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We need you.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I assure the Attorney: you have got me right through until March 2010—and I am really looking forward to the adventure!

Neither the 2007-08 nor the 2008-09 budgets updated the status of the shared services initiative. During the 2008-09 estimates hearings, the Treasurer and the ministers confirmed that the 2007-08 savings would be realised; however, the minister for finance said that only $25 million of the total of $45 million in savings were likely in the 2008-09 period. There were no estimates of the savings shortfall. The Treasurer confirmed that the savings of $60 million from 2009-10 onwards might 'slip' a year. However, the minister for finance's comments suggest that these savings might slip more than a year.

On 30 June, the Budget and Finance Committee heard that delays to the shared services initiative meant that the government is paying 'dead rent' for buildings to house public servants. We all know that the Public Service Association is unhappy with these reforms. In July 2007, the government announced the lease of nine floors at Westpac House, on 91 King William Street, to accommodate and centralise all the staff as part of the shared services project. Property industry sources estimate that the government will pay around $4 million per annum for this lease.

The Under Treasurer also confirmed that the government will spend $9 million fitting out new office space at 77 Grenfell Street before public servants move in, which may not be until next year because of the delays. The original budget for shared services implementation was $60 million; now an additional $37 million has been allocated, pushing the total implementation cost to $97 million.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I would call for a doctor, but there aren't too many still on the payroll—they have all resigned!

Of course, then there is the RISTEC project. In July 2002, cabinet approved the development of RISTEC as a RevenueSA information system to enable compliance. The system, for the collection of state taxation revenue, was to have been implemented by June 2006 at a cost of $22.6 million. The new integrated system was to replace existing systems. The Budget and Finance Committee, however, heard that an extra $20.5 million had been allocated to the project—a blow-out of almost 100 percent—which is now expected to be completed in 2011.

The Treasurer told the 2008-09 estimates that the RISTEC system will generate additional tax revenue through increased compliance. The savings are expected to be $14 million in 2011-12 and $19 million once it is fully operational, but of course the whole project is collapsing or pushing beyond its time lines.

I give these two examples of the government's inability to meet its savings targets. Standard & Poor's previously noted that its AAA rating was dependent on the government's meeting its savings targets. Add to these the wage negotiations that have failed under the lack of leadership from this government, clearly the government has been forced to concede more than it has budgeted, and that will have an impact on the budget.

Again, we have a picture of a government that cannot achieve its savings targets and cannot control its wages bill but is growing the size of government beyond that for which it budgeted. When you add all these things together, you have risk, and that risk is particularly highlighted by the current economic uncertainty evident in the state, national and international economies.

If revenues decrease even slightly, the very small net operating surplus the Treasurer has maintained, given the size of the overall budget, will be at risk—little wonder that estimates have confirmed the fact that the government is taxing out of control. We know that the Commonwealth Grants Commission has revealed that we are working our tax base in this state harder than any other state; the Treasurer conceded that during estimates and just accepted it as a given. We are the highest taxing state in the commonwealth.

As we heard during estimates, there have been extraordinary increases in tax across the board, with only piecemeal offerings in regard to reform, which has not been the sort of comprehensive reform that is needed and which the opposition has been calling for. I will not go through it chapter and verse, but I say that the opposition has already held a tax summit and that we are driving the agenda on this subject. Sooner or later, tax reform is one of the structural reforms this government will need to address. I only hope that by then it has not once again bankrupted the state (as it did when it was last in government), leaving few options for reform.

One of the most concerning issues that has arisen from the budget is the heavy burden being pushed onto motorists. We have a national debate raging at the moment about the cost of fuel. I see in the warm afterglow of the federal election, with Labor governments, state and federal, rushing to kiss and cuddle one another, that the federal Labor Treasurer is threatening to reduce the GST take from fuel gained by the states. Already, there are threats of taking away some money. We will see how that unfolds. The GST revenue on fuel, together with the almost $500 million of other taxes and charges on motorists, is hurting families and small business.

The other thing that has been revealed during budget estimates is some of the truths about the so-called mining boom. The Premier is going around spruiking up what he calls the mining boom and, to be perfectly frank, we all welcome—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: There isn't one?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No, there is not. If the Attorney-General had read his own budget paper, instead of whatever it is that he is reading—which is probably totally irrelevant—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —the English language; he is trying to learn it—he would have noticed the budget confirms that mining's contribution to the South Australian economy during the period of this budget has fallen from 4.8 per cent in 1996-97 to 4.3 per cent in 2006-07. Also, he would have noticed that jobs in the mining sector have fallen, according to the ABS. He would have noticed that mining contributed 8.4 per cent to Queensland's economy in 2006-07, where mining royalties were $3.6 billion. Think about that figure: $3.6 billion. It is slightly less—around $3.4 billion—in Western Australia. He would have noticed that in this budget mining revenue from royalties for the state government was $163.5 million. The last time I compared $163.5 million with $3.6 billion there was a big gap. I know that Labor Party politicians cannot add up. We worked that out with the State Bank collapse.

If the government is trying to spin that we are enjoying a mining boom on a par with Queensland and Western Australia, I suggest they get out their pocket calculators and recompute. There is not a mining boom happening now.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's a mirage in the desert, is it?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: There is a promise of things to come. I make the point that—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —before they encourage those in the economy, who are prone to go out there and hype things up—and we all know who they are because they get by on hyping things up—I will give one example. Property prices in Whyalla in the past 12 months have risen extraordinarily, much of it on the promise of the overhyped mining boom about which the Premier keeps talking. Mums and dads are mortgaging their existing homes and buying investment properties or going in at a very high price on the promise that this boom will unfold. I hope the Premier delivers—because we could see dramatic falls in those house prices.

That is what happens when you overhype things. We need to deal with the facts. The fact is that there is not a mining boom at present but, rather, mining exploration. We welcome that—it is a wonderful thing—but let us keep our feet firmly on the ground, let us deal with facts not fantasy, let us not get caught up in the wave of spin through which this Labor government hopes to con the people of South Australia for a third term.

They have taken their eye off manufacturing and food producers. Exports are only now reaching the levels they were eight years ago. A lot of our core—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Exactly: they were going to triple them. Well, they did not triple them. A lot of our core businesses are floundering and the government is trying to bury all that under this spin that there is a mining boom happening and there is a defence boom happening.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, the Attorney-General might look at the facts because the facts speak for themselves. When mining as a share of economic activity decreases, when mining jobs decrease and when royalties are 1/20th of those in Queensland, there is not a mining boom happening—just deal with the facts.

I know the Attorney-General has never run a business. I do not know whether he has had a job. I think he was a copyboy at The Advertiser. He has never had a job as a lawyer. He has spent more time in court appearing as a witness in corruption cases than he has working as a lawyer. He has never employed anyone, as far as I know. I do not know whether he has ever had a real job—perhaps he could tell us. If he had a real job he would have learnt how to count.

When one counts the figures there is not a mining boom. I am sorry to tell you the truth. Maybe they sit in caucus and turn around like tops with all the spin going on: 'Wow, there's a mining boom going on; there's a mining boom going on.'

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have a point of order, sir.

Ms Chapman: He has a real job!

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The Leader of the Opposition is spinning around 180º and apparently dancing in his spot. Is that not a display within the meaning of Erskine May?

The SPEAKER: No. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer loves question time because we get to ask a tightly confined question and he gets up and rabbits on like a chook—if that is possible—for as long as he likes. He can be funny and witty. He can quote from the dictionary. He can banter about. But it is funny how prickly he gets when he is on front bench duty and it is coming back the other way. It is funny how prickly he gets. I do not know whether he has a glass jaw–it is probably a china jaw—but, whatever it is, it cracks and breaks very quickly. How fragile he is. Anyway, he will not be the Attorney-General for much longer—I think it is 20 months. The member for Heysen will do a much better job—but we must move on.

We need to be realistic about the mining boom and deal with the facts, and that brings me to defence because that also arose during budget statements. Of course, we welcome any growth in defence, and we have done well thanks to the former federal Liberal government's effort in getting contracts here, particularly the air warfare destroyer. We all know that Penny Wong and Kate Ellis would have been able to do the same job in getting the air warfare destroyer contract here if it had been their decision.

I am sure they would have been just as good in cabinet as the four or five senior Liberal ministers who saw that contract come in. The truth of it is: if it was not for the former federal government, the air warfare destroyer project may well not be here, and that is the message the government needs to understand about defence.

As the economy tightens and things get tighter, much of that government contract work for the future may dry up and further large contracts may not necessarily follow. They may follow; they may not. You cannot build an economy around defence contracts. You need to remember your food producers, your wine industry, your grain crops, the work your farmers are doing in building exports, your manufacturing and small business and your tourism. You need to remember all those businesses as well, but this government has not: it as all about mining and defence.

I say let us deal with the facts. That brings me to the question of GST revenues which have just been extraordinary. I take a moment to remind the house of the absolute inspired brilliance of the Premier and the Treasurer when they said that the GST was a dumb idea and a rotten deal for South Australia. The Premier is prone to this sort of prophesising. He would have been a fortune teller in another life. For example, who else could have predicted that Roxby Downs would be a mirage in the desert? Who else could have predicted that it would have been the worst thing that could have happened to South Australia, other than Mike Rann? Of course, who else could have predicted that the GST would be a rotten deal for South Australia. Who else could have predicted that Tim Marcus Clark was a wonderful guy and the State Bank would have been a terrific jewel in South Australia's crown?

Only our Premier could demonstrate such inspired brilliance on Roxby Downs, the State Bank and the GST that he got it wrong, got it wrong and then got it wrong again. Now he is telling us that we are getting a great deal for the River Murray. I might just shift to the question of water in this budget. As we speak, the Premier is over there arguing the case for South Australia. He has a cabbage in one hand and he is smacking Mr Brumby on the cheek with it. He has a cucumber in the other hand and he is going to ding Kevin Rudd on the head.

He is doing such a good job of arguing the case for South Australia that it looks as though he will sign an agreement today that does not require Victoria or New South Wales to give up their powers or to refer them to the commonwealth, so, in effect, they will have a veto power and they can back away from anything when it gets tough and with which they do not agree it.

He is not going to demand a strong, powerful independent authority as he said he would, because how can there be one if the states still have their powers and can still veto decisions and nobble such an authority? He will not demand that over-allocated water be bought back. No, we have gone for the infrastructure option. As Professor Young said this morning on radio, we are all a bit disappointed that the Premier has bailed out to the infrastructure option.

The infrastructure will be welcome, it will be good, it is needed, but there is no point in having pipes if there is no water to put in them. The tough decision is reversing the over allocation of water upstream. The tough decision is getting New South Wales and Victoria to let the water flow and to stop abusing it.

That is why we have recognised in the state Liberal Party that, ultimately, we will have to go down the Professor Mike Young option of buying back over-allocated water—and buying it from willing sellers may not be enough. We are setting out our plans as to how it should be done. The other states have to refer their powers. There has to be a strong, independent authority and this fundamental issue of over allocation of water has to be addressed.

There is none of that in the budget. The Premier is over there signing away a once in a lifetime opportunity: he is signing away our ability to get New South Wales and Victoria to the table. Why? Because he is national President of the Labor Party and he is the Premier of South Australia. Which of those two jobs is more important to him—national President of the Labor Party.

He does not want to have a fight with Mr Brumby, Mr Iemma or Mr Rudd or put Mr Rudd on the spot, so he has sold out South Australian interests in the interests of the Australian Labor Party. Of course, there was further evidence of it in the budget. Not much here for wastewater, nothing here for stormwater. As we heard during budget estimates, Mount Bold has sunk without a trace; and the Upper Spencer Gulf desal plant, apparently the member for Giles said that it is definitely going ahead, but the ministers say, 'No, we do not think it is.' It is another little squabble going on in caucus.

However, if you ever needed an example of Media Mike getting caught out by his own spruiking, it was the desal plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf. It was a centrepiece of the budget—hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. When he spoke to BHP about the fine print, it turned out that the water was not going to be potable and now we cannot go ahead with it. This is the mining boom that we are being over spruiked—

An honourable member: Here's the next premier.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, that's right, the next premier may have walked in. Although he has had his own problems in the past week or two. We might get to that in a minute. He might have gone down in the pecking order. We might be back to the Kevin Foley option or the Pat Conlon option. We could elevate political affairs in South Australia, so instead of having a minister for stuff ups, we could have a government for stuff ups and a premier for stuff ups—and wouldn't that be so much more exciting for us all! Water has been neglected in this budget, as we know, yet it is the number one issue.

Health is an aspect of this budget that just beggars belief. The government has gone off on a frolic, and I will tell the government although it knows what it has done, but I will spell it out for it because the media know as well. It has been on this mantra for six or seven years about its priorities being health, police and education. Of course, it did not deliver anything for health, police or education, but it has been on this mantra. The opposition has been pressuring it for 18 months or longer about infrastructure and public transport and, under pressure, it has conceded that it needs to shift—to get off its messages and get onto the message of infrastructure and transport. It has come onto our ground.

Welcome to infrastructure and public transport! We know that ground very well. We have been arguing it for 18 months to two years. We have been leading the agenda on it. The government now is following our lead and electrifying the rail system. Of course, it is doing a couple of other kooky things we would not do such as build more trams, but at least it understands it needs to reinvest in the public transport system. And, hello, what has happened? It has gone with $2 billion. All it wants to talk about is trams to the western suburbs—to safe Labor seats, by the way—and what has happened? The doctors are resigning, the teachers are on strike, and the nurses are not happy. Now the firefighters are out there. Forget about health, education and police. The government is meandering around like a drunken sailor in a bar who does not quite know which door to stagger out of.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Of course, the Attorney spruiks up. He obviously argued hard for his electorate when these budget negotiations were underway. He wanted a tram—'I would like a tram.' Forget about the plight of the River Murray irrigators, forget about people whose lives depend on a hospital in the country, forget about the 21 children who were rescued in the last couple of weeks from terrible situations. Let us just worry about trams to the Attorney-General's electorate. 'Let's go west, young man. We will build a $162 million tram to the Entertainment Centre.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I will run through the sums for the Attorney, because we have worked them through. Based on his $162 million cost for extending the tramline from the tram station to nowhere down to the Entertainment Centre—we will use the government's own figures—it will cost $149 million to do the West Lakes extension, $77 million for the Semaphore extension and $103 million to do the Port Adelaide extension. Add it all up and it is half a billion dollars in trams. That is in today's dollars. It will be far more than that in tomorrow's dollars when the government eventually builds them. But, then again, I notice it did not put any figures in the budget to pay for it. It is all in the beyond-estimates period. It is probably about as in-the-bag as the Mount Bold reservoir extension and the Upper Spencer Gulf desalination plant. The government would say, 'She's in the bag, you can count on us, it will definitely be happening.' It is a load of garbage.

The government is happy to spend half a billion dollars on trams to its own electorates but it is not prepared to make sure that country people have a hospital, when they need one, with a doctor and a nurse in it. It is happy to build trams to Semaphore but it is not prepared to ensure that water security is provided for the people of South Australia. It is happy to spend money on trams, half a billion dollars worth, in its own electorates but it is not prepared to ensure that the Department for Families and Communities has enough workers to intervene early in the case of families in need.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Will you cancel it?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The trams?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: He does not even listen. Pull the cotton wool out of your ears, Attorney. Wake up, for heaven's sake! We replied to the budget and we told you we would not be proceeding with the trams. It has been in the paper, on TV and on the radio. Where have you been? For God's sake, where has he been? Having cups of coffee with Graham Archer? Having a sherry with Randall Ashbourne? Where have you been, Attorney? Get with it! Don't you read your media monitoring? Wake up to yourself and get a grip of what is going on.

This is where estimates have shown that the government's priorities are all over the place. All of this is in the context of unfunded superannuation liabilities that have gone up $2 billion. By the way, during budget estimates it was revealed that the Treasurer had just fiddled a little bit with the discount rate he uses for estimating superannuation. He has shown it as $7.1 billion by 2011-12 using a discount rate of 6.3 per cent, but he had to admit under questioning in estimates that he used to use a discount rate of 6 per cent, which is the rate the commonwealth uses, and if he had used that the unfunded liability would be another $540 million, so it is heading towards $8 billion, not $7.164 billion. That is another little accounting fiddle, like a few of the others, revealing yet again a blow-out in unfunded liability. Then we have the $1 billion for WorkCover and the $400 million for their own scheme. You are doing a great job, fellas. Just keep it up and it will be the State Bank mark 2 in no time whatsoever. The trouble is that, this time, the options for fixing the mess the government has created will not be as evident as they were in 1994.

I am not going to go on at length about the doctors crisis. I would simply say: how can a competent government let it come to this? I would say about the current Minister for Health—the dulcet-toned Minister for Health, the very suave Minister for Health—that I am sure he could have sat on the stern of the Titanic and said, 'It's all right, the ship's just sinking. There will be a lifeboat coming in no time and we will just hop on board.' He could have been conducting the band as the ship sank. Everything seems calm on the surface like a duck paddling on a still lake and, underneath, legs are madly going, trying to stop itself drowning.

The problem is he has been caught out. He has hundreds of doctors handing in their resignations. They are exposing the failures of our health system and particularly our emergency departments. We have people left on trolleys in emergency corridors for days, we have people overworked and understaffed, we have a health system that is quite apparently in chaos and a hospital system that simply is not coping. The reason it is not coping is because the people are not being adequately resourced. It is not about bricks and mortar.

That brings me to one of the most remarkable revelations of budget estimates. The government has run the mantra for more than a year that the cost of building the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital would be $1.9 billion (including the cost of remediation) and that the cost of building a new hospital at the Royal Adelaide would be $1.4 billion. Of course this was carefully consulted, we were told. There were consultants involved, full reports done.

Ms Chapman: We're not allowed to see those.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Of course, that is all secret, no-one's able to see that, but it is $1.4 billion. We suspect that that is grossly overstated, but to do the right thing, we thought we would give the government the benefit of the doubt. We used the government's own figures and we pointed out that there is half a billion dollar gap between $1.4 billion and $1.9 billion. Obviously it is getting traction. We are saying, 'Why not spend the other half a billion dollars on country health or doctors and nurses and provide for them in the future?' Suddenly, in comes the Minister for Health out of nowhere—mind you, the Treasurer had just told me in estimates a few days before that it was $1.4 billion, or just under that, for the RAH—and he says, 'We've redone the sums, we think it's now going to be'—what was it?

Ms Chapman: It was $2.2 billion.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, $2.2 billion, so we have had a blow-out of something that is hypothetical that we have not even done yet. It has gone from $1.4 billion to $2.2 billion. I used to think that the Minister for Health had a modicum of credibility, I did once think that, but I am afraid that, with that announcement, his credibility just flew out the window. I give this message to any public servant who has put their name to it, 'Have a good think about your professionalism.' Anyone who can dream up a figure that jumps from $1.4 billion to $2.2 billion overnight and put that to a minister—we all know the minister sought the figure and we would all know that the minister has contrived the figure. If there is any public servant involved in trying to give it credibility, we will drag that out and we will find out who that is, because that person needs to be put before their peers to explain how on earth such nonsense can be carried into this place.

This blatant attempt to fiddle the figures just beggars belief. I am sure the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital has blown out well over $2 billion already, but what we do not need is a multibillion dollar monument to Media Mike. What we do need going forward is provision for wages for doctors and nurses and adequate staffing levels. The health system is about people. We can rebuild the RAH; we must rebuild the RAH. The rubbish being peddled about by the government is that it cannot be done. It took that solution to the last election. It has done it at the QEH. We are doing it at the QEH—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: On the basis that you were going to rebuild the RAH, you won the election. Then, after the election, you changed your mind. I put it to the government that it seems to have been taking the view that it can rebuild the QEH. It seems to be able to rebuild Flinders, it seems to be able to rebuild the Lyell McEwin, but for some reason or another it is literally impossible to rebuild the RAH. It is a total load of nonsense.

The fact is that the government took a political risk. Someone came up with a smart idea. I know who it was—our dulcet-toned Minister for Health. He hung you out to dry, he convinced you all that putting a hospital down in the railyards would be a brilliant idea. You are going to have to live with that idea now. It is a rotten idea. Calling it the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital was a rotten idea as well.

Now let us see what the people of South Australia decide at the next election. You have got yourself an election issue. It will be a new hospital at the RAH site or a new hospital with the Marj and I know what people think about that option already. We are happy to take that to them, because we have asked them and we know what they think. So if it is such a brilliant idea, let's see what people think about it at the next election.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Exactly. I think another question we would like to put to the people at the next election—particularly good, solid country folk—is whether they would like the state Liberals' solution for their local hospital or Labor's solution. I think that is another little question that we might put to the good people of Maitland and the good people of Laura and Booleroo Station, and the good people of the South-East and Bordertown and up in the Riverland.

That reminds me, in the context of this budget, how deeply enmeshed the National Party is in it. How can the leader of the National Party can come in here and bin the hospital in Waikerie, bin the hospital in Renmark, I think bin the hospital in Loxton and then say, 'Oh, we'll have one in Berri,' and then on the front page of our own local paper say (I think the words were) 'I'll pass your message on'—to the people who elected her? Not, 'I'll go in there and fight for you,' it was, 'I'll pass your message on.'

I can just imagine her passing her message on sheepishly in cabinet to Mike Rann as she says, 'Please don't sack me, Mike. I really love my job on $220,000 a year and I've really got used to the car, so please don't sack me. I love being a member of the Labor Party cabinet.' The Nationals and Labor—the Attorney is so smart he keeps calling it a National-Labor coalition. I tell you what: that is how we see it too. If there is a National candidate in Goyder at the next election, if the Nationals have the temerity even to nominate in Flinders, if they are stupid enough to put up a candidate in the good seat of Stuart—

An honourable member: Or Frome.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Or Frome, we will make sure that good, decent country people in those seats understand what the National Party stands for. The National Party stands for closing hospitals, for running hospitals down; it stands for a budget that ignores our water crisis; it stands for a government that lets our roads get run down and ignores and neglects infrastructure right across the state. This state National Party is a disgrace. It does not stand for country people at all, and every single member of the National Party in South Australia should be ashamed of their leader and should condemn her for assigning their party to the dustbin of history.

The only party that represents the true interests of country people in this state is the state Liberal Party. Hundreds of people are meeting in towns all across the state to see that point demonstrated as we speak. The Nationals and Labor are in bed together. For them, the state of South Australia ends at Gepps Cross and the Toll Gate, and may they hang their head in shame over it.

I will not go on for much longer: I think I have covered the main points. However, I just want to finish on a couple of issues. I have talked about health and public transport. I want to commend the shadow minister for education and children's services for exposing during estimates some of the porkies being told by Labor about education; in particular, the so-called education revolution—you know, the education revolution that the Labor Party told us about. Every kid was going to have a laptop; a Dell computer in every home.

It turns out that it is not an education revolution: it is an education devolution. There is virtually nothing in this budget for education. Not only that, it turns out that the education revolution money is just being used to replace computers already in the possession of the education department. The government says that it is spending more on education, but when one considers that a lot of that expense is just increased wages, the standard of education is not improving. During the course of these estimates thousands of teachers were on the steps of Parliament House, unhappy about their pay and conditions.

The evidence speaks for itself. This is a government failing on health and education, and it is failing miserably on law and order. Have we got rid of the bikie problem? Remember, they were going to be bulldozed. Have we got rid of the Gang of 49 problem? Are the courts adequately funded? Does the DPP have adequate resources? There is some extra money here, but can the courts and the prosecution service now fully meet the needs of the community? No, they cannot.

What about our gaols? We are going to get gaols in 100 years' time, I think—whenever they finish Mobilong (they have not even started it yet). The gaol system is failing. Those core issues, about which much was promised, have been left to flounder. Now we are off on frolics in the western suburbs building trams. My, my, my! I think the government has lost its way.

There are also those 21 children who were abandoned by our government and who had to be rescued, and the failure of the Families and Communities system, for whatever reason. It is fine to say, 'We are spending more money,' but I just want to get one point through the thick skulls of members opposite. It is not about how much you are spending: it is about how well you spend it. Most of us on this side of the house have run a business or a farm. We know how easy it is to spend money. Spending money is the easiest thing in the world to do. However, spending it well is another issue. The government has the money: it should have had the results. It should be out there delivering the genuine early intervention that these children and families in crisis need.

During estimates we heard the Premier trying to be populist about this and trying to be tough. He was going to rack 'em, stack 'em and pack 'em—that is, the parents. He was going to take the parents of these kids, and he was going to take the kids away. He was going to get the police involved. I have some news for the Premier. Some of these parents are themselves the victims of abuse, they have mental health issues, and some of them have drug and alcohol abuse issues. Some of the mothers have been subjected to the most horrible physical abuse. I will bet that, in most cases, they love their children and the children love them. However, the family is in crisis and is breaking down.

This stuff about 'We're going to take the kids away and rack, stack and pack the parents' is just a demonstration of how out of touch, shallow and populist this Premier is. Trying to tap into the anger of decent families by turning them on the parents of families in crisis, frankly, is sick. It is another demonstration of this Nemeresque appeal to the lynch mob mentality. The Attorney is waving his arms around: he knows that if you try to organise a lynch mob you will get a crowd every day. Let us not worry about the causes of crime. Let us not worry about dealing with the issues. Let us go off on symbolic frolics that in a populist way attempt to whip up public fury but do nothing about solving the problems. That is what this government is all about, and I think it has been exposed.

I think it is a poor budget. It comes out of estimates, I think, in poorer shape than when it went in. It exposes a range of failings, and the only person who can be held responsible for those failings is the bloke at the top: the Premier. In my view, it is time for South Australians to have a serious look at this bloke (and I think that, increasingly, they are) and the sort of government he has delivered over the last seven years and also the media manipulation; the good news.

On the adelaidenow page of The Advertiser I saw a shot of the Premier with a sock in his mouth—the good news Premier. I saw, disappointingly, his attempt to soften the opposition's budget reply by scheduling an apology to those who were abused in state care on the same day as our reply was scheduled, which was seen by all commentators as a cynical attempt to manipulate the media. We have seen him during the course of these estimates have his game spoiled with respect to the Marion swimming pool. I took great delight in breaking that story, instead of the front page exclusive that the Premier had planned, complete with Olympic swimmers, at the Marion pool. He was caught out once again manipulating the good news. It is time for South Australians to have a good look at this bloke and what he has not done, what he has promised and what, in the best of times, he has failed to deliver.

In conclusion, I say that there are enough things in this budget to make one angry and, if our constitution was written slightly differently, the opposition may have looked at options to block it. We all know that on the question of blocking supply our constitution is a hall of mirrors. But, if ever there was a trigger for a constitutional crisis and for blocking supply, I think the cuts to country health in this budget (salted out, by the way, in the depths of night, following the afternoon of the budget, hopefully in order to slip beneath the radar) provide an example of that trigger, which, combined with the failure to act on our water crisis, ordinarily ought to give the opposition grounds to block supply. We all know that, because of the way our constitution is worded, it is a difficult thing to do. In another world with a different constitution things might have played out slightly differently. With those comments, I conclude my remarks.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:24): I concur with my leader that this is a budget that is not for all South Australians. It is, indeed, a budget that will continue our path down the road that we have been on for some time now, where, relative to the other states and our cousins across the state borders (those artificial lines), South Australia is going backwards. That has been happening for far too long in this state. Whilst we have the sort of budgets that we have seen from this Treasurer, this Premier, and this government, we will continue on that slide.

As a representative of a country seat, it would be remiss of me to not mention health, particularly country health. I am absolutely delighted to report to the house that yesterday evening the good people of Bordertown in my electorate came out in force and rallied. It was reported to me that some 1,500 people attended a public meeting in Bordertown yesterday evening. I spoke to one of the rally organisers earlier in the afternoon and said, 'The minister's backed down a fair way, and it looks like Bordertown will be reprieved, or at least he is saying that at the moment.' She said, 'Yes; some people suggested that we no longer need to hold the rally.' I said, 'Don't do that. I think you need to hold the rally. I think we need to show our stance on this right across country South Australia. Even if Bordertown does get a reprieve, the way this government works, it may be short-lived.' So, they did come out in force—1,500 people; I would suggest more than half of the total population—

Mr Pederick: More than half.

Mr WILLIAMS: More than half of the total population of that town. The children were not there; it was the parents. Nearly every adult in Bordertown was out there rallying for their hospital, because they know how important it is, yet this heartless, cold and callous government was quite prepared to shut it down and will continue with its plan to shut down other hospitals in other country communities across the state. It is an absolute outrage that Premier Mike Rann stood up after an election win and said, 'I intend to govern this state for all South Australians.' Nothing could be further from the truth.

The estimates committee is an interesting process. I was talking on air with Leon Byner this morning about the outrageous increases in registration fees for recreational boaters, or any boats. The average boater with a five to six metre tinny will see a 26 per cent increase in the registration fee. That is the average boater, but there is a whole heap outside of the average. I said to Leon, 'Typical bully boy tactics: you pick on the most unpopular kid in the schoolyard and you go over and pummel him.' That is what bullies do, and that is what this government has done to those people who dare to buy a jet ski. This government knows that they are not overly popular. A lot of people do not like the noise they make and the speed that they travel at so, 'We'll pick on them', and their registration fee will go from $72 a year to, I think, $268, or something of that order. It is outrageous, typical bully-boy behaviour: pick on the unpopular kid down in the backyard and really pummel him—and that is what has happened to jet skiers.

Leon Byner said, 'Mitch, with regard to fees, everybody doesn't mind paying a CPI increase and that sort of thing.' He said, 'Shouldn't we have a situation where some sort of organisation can vet these increases, something like ESCOSA does with our electricity prices?' I said, 'Leon, the reality is that we've got that system; it's called budget estimates; it just doesn't work. And without any more cost to the state, we are already paying the politicians, we are all there doing the work, but the budget estimates just don't work.' I had the unfortunate experience of sitting through at least one budget estimates committee where not only did the minister not answer my questions but the chair gave a running commentary on just about every question I asked, which I found was a waste of time. It did not help the committee, and it certainly did not help the opposition get any answers, and I suspect that was the motive behind the whole thing.

I yet again put on the record, as I am sure will many people over the course of this day, that it is time we sort out budget estimates and make it work. Get rid of the time limits so that ministers do not filibuster. Do what they do in the Senate, where you can sit down and ask questions and get to the bottom of issues. You can ask questions about certain issues relating to what the government is doing.

Let me say that big old Borrow and Spend Kevin is at it again. If we look at the budget and apply a net borrowing and lending basis to budget assessments we will see that some $548 million is his deficit. He goes out there on a daily basis and says, 'I'm running surplus budgets,' but, really, he is running up a debt of $548 million. And people are saying, 'Gee, that's a fair bit of money, but we need some infrastructure. Maybe we can.' He keeps talking about all this infrastructure, but people do not realise that around the corner he has another organisation called SA Water, but that is off budget. I happened to ask the minister how much SA Water will borrow in this budget period.

This is after the Treasurer said last December that we would increase the cost of water—that we would increase the average rate in South Australia by 12.7 per cent, and that we would do the same next year, and same the year after that, the year after that and the year after that. About 12½ per, the Treasurer said, for five years in a row—and that is to pay for the infrastructure.

I asked the minister how much was SA Water going to borrow in the next 12 months, knowing full well that Treasurer Kev is already borrowing $548 million. It is expected that another $316 million will be borrowed by SA Water. So, the taxpayer of South Australia, who owns SA Water and who is ultimately responsible for those borrowings, in the next 12 months, will be asked to go into the market and borrow at least $864 million, and there are some other organisations around that same corner that, no doubt, will be out there borrowing as well.

You would have to ask, 'Why is SA Water borrowing so much money?' The government says, 'Well we're going to build all this infrastructure. It really is a good organisation, and it works well.' Well, this is how good SA Water is: we all know that a deal has been done between the government and the Catholic Church to take over the lease of the new building going up down there at No. 1 Victoria Square, and SA Water is spending $46.1 million just to fit out the building. Some other government agencies are going in there at a multimillion dollar cost as well. But SA Water is spending $46.1 million.

When we asked the government, 'Why are we spending all this money just to fit out a building and then paying an exorbitant rent on top of that?', the government said, 'Oh, SA Water has to move out of the building it is in because the lease has expired.' When we looked through the budget and we got a few more details on that, we found that the government is involved in a deal in relation to that building down in Franklin Street (I think it is 77 or 117, or something; SA Water House, I think it is called).

Because of the State Bank collapse, some dealings have been done on that building. The government has an underwriting contract on that building, and the lease is expiring and the building is on the market. Do you know what? Part of the lease agreement is that, if the building fails to make $39.5 million, the government has to make up the difference. But that amount happens to be $7 million less than we are paying just to fit-out the new building, which we are then going to pay rent on as well. The government could have bought the building SA Water is in for $39.5 million. We could have owned that building, and there would be no more rent or lease payments and no fit-out costs at all—they are already in there. How amazing! But that is the sort of budget we are running.

I was involved in a number of the committees, and I will briefly go through some of the things that were revealed. We know that this government keeps standing up and saying how important the government policy has been to bring wind generators to South Australia. When I asked the minister for energy how much of the wind power generated in South Australia was actually purchased in South Australia—because it is the people who purchase the power that is generated who drive the construction of the generators—he did not know. Yet he went on at length talking about how people in New South Wales should be paying for new transmission interconnection infrastructure to shift power around, obviously because they are buying the greened energy.

The drivers of wind farms in South Australia are the MRET schemes of the former Howard government, and the new MRET scheme of the New South Wales and Victorian government is where the drivers are. The minister refused to tell the committee how much of the wind power generated in South Australia is actually sold in South Australia. I do not believe that the minister does not know the answer to the question, but he tried to convince the committee that he did not know the answer.

I spoke to the same minister about infrastructure. I asked him, 'How many traffic management reports have you had prepared on the project for the tram extension down to the Entertainment Centre?' I also asked him, 'How many reports were prepared for a business case study of that project?' I read through the Hansard last night—and it ran for over a full page of Hansard—and, at the end of the minister's answer, I said, 'That is the sum total of the reports?', and we got another half a page of abuse from the minister. He could not cite one report, one traffic flow management study and not one business case study for that particular project, or any of the other tram extension projects.

So, I put to the members of the government: what is going to happen to the traffic as it tries to cross the River Torrens down there at the start of Port Road when you remove two lanes? I remember the minister saying that the trams going down King William Street would reduce congestion, and I remember him saying that we were going to get rid of most of the buses because the people would be on the trams. When we asked him, 'How many lanes of the road are we going to use?', I remember the minister saying, 'I don't know; I can't answer that.' He did know, but he did not want to answer because he knows what is going to happen down Port Road is what happens straight out in front of this building morning and night: traffic chaos. He knows that, but he would not answer the question.

This government, as the leader has pointed out, continues to make bold announcements but it cannot live up to them because this government is actually incapable of delivering: it has proved that. I have tagged here a number of cases where that was proved to me through the estimates process.

The leader talked about Mount Bold. I went back and pulled out The Advertiser of, I think, 8 or 9 June last year. There was a large artist's impression—it was probably done by SA Water; it was probably not done at The Advertiser. The government would have supplied the photo to The Advertiser to put on the front page of the newspaper—and there were dots and lines showing where the new dam would be located.

Mr Pederick: A mirage in the Hills.

Mr WILLIAMS: A mirage in the Hills! Well, it is not even that. There is going to be a pipe connecting the northern and southern systems—Hope Valley to Happy Valley. I asked the minister, 'How much water do you propose to pump through the pipe? What is the design capacity?' The government has been out there saying that this will cost $304 million, but it is not in the budget. However, members should remember that the desal plant will cost $1.4 billion, $300 million of which is for this pipe.

When I asked the minister about its capacity, he said, 'Don't know.' When I asked him how much water would be pumped through it, he said, 'Don't know,' and when I asked where he got this figure of $304 million from, the answer seemed to be, 'We gaze out the window and to the first number that comes into our head we add our age and double it.' The answer from SA Water, from transport and from every other portfolio area seems to be, 'Don't know.'

I asked the minister about the desal plant in Upper Spencer Gulf and about whether the government had made a commitment, and the answer was, 'No; we haven't really made a commitment; we've signed a memorandum of understanding with BHP.' I asked what it said, and I was told, 'It says that we're going to investigate something with them.' 'But you haven't made a commitment?' 'No; there's no commitment.'

I asked the minister why, on 18 October last year, the Premier came into the house and said that he was delighted to announce that we would have two desalination plants, one near Whyalla, with a South Australian government and a federal government component, which would supply desalinated water to Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Augusta and parts of Eyre Peninsula. That sounds like a commitment. The Premier went on to say in Hansard, 'The fact of the matter is we are committed to two desal plants: one for Upper Spencer Gulf and one for Adelaide.'

What did the minister say to that? She said, 'We are, and we are working through the detail of that with BHP. We have signed a memorandum of understanding, and we are working through the detail.' Are we committed or are we not committed to a desal plant in Upper Spencer Gulf? Are we investigating or are we indeed sitting back to see what BHP does?

Whoops! BHP is not going to build a desal plant that will produce water you can drink. That is what the Treasurer told the house in an explanation when he was caught out. BHP was a bit offended by that and said that the water it would produce would be well within World Health Organisation drinking guidelines, that it would be drinkable water and that it really did not know what the Treasurer was on about.

I know what the Treasurer and the Minister for Water Security were on about—trying to cover their backsides because they were out there saying that they had made commitments when, in reality, they had not and there were no commitments and, as we worked our way through budget estimates, that is what we found.

Yesterday, the Premier issued a press release stating that he would be thumping the table and getting $500 million for infrastructure out of the commonwealth government while he was at the COAG meeting. He would thump the table, beat his chest and come home with $500 million.

I happen to know that the Premier was putting the case in Canberra last week. I know how he operates, and I can guarantee that in tomorrow's headlines he will say, 'How good am I? I beat them into submission, and I got the money.' I happen to know that he went over there with over $1 billion worth of projects. I am damn certain that he already had a tick in the box for $500 million worth, but he has been out there spruiking and saying, 'I'm going to fight for these.'

We already know that they are in the bag, but why will that be the headline? Publicity? That is almost correct, because the headline he did not want was the real one of importance to South Australia, and particularly to irrigators and those living around the Lower Lakes—that is, that he has failed. The Premier has been dudded yet again by John Brumby. He will be dudded by Morris Iemma and Kevin Rudd, just as we have been saying he would be ever since that historic sign-off in March 2006.

The state has been dudded, and the Premier has been dudded by his mates. He is the National President of the ALP, but his mates have dudded him—and the people of South Australia have been dudded by the Premier. I do not care about his being dudded by his mates: I never expected him to do any better because he has already proved that he is all huff and puff and very little substance. However, I certainly care about the people of South Australia being dudded by this Premier and by this government.

The hallmark of this government is big announcements but no results. He talks about being the education Premier, and they talk about being the health government and the law and order government, but there have been no results in any of those areas and no results on any of the issues that I asked ministers about in estimates.

There have been plenty of big announcements over the past couple of years but, to date, there have been no results. The worst thing for this state in the current financial year is that Borrow and Spend Kevin is at it again (at least within his own Treasury and SA Water), with $864 million of debt, which I do not believe this state can afford and which I do not think this government knows how to manage.

Time expired.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:44): Rather than talk about the budget estimates, and the answers we did not get, I want to look first at the larger theme of budget estimates and the way we conduct them. Certainly, in his contribution, the member for MacKillop made a couple of salient comments on this issue. Every year, ever since I have been in this place, when I start budget estimates I make the same comment about what an abysmal process and waste of time it is. I have had to work hard my whole life, and I hate wasting time and having to do things that are a waste of time and money.

In fact, at the beginning of my first session in this year's Estimates Committee A, I mentioned that if we did a time/cost analysis of this process it would fail by miles on any reasonable standard. The thing about budget estimates is that no-one denies that the government is the government. It has the majority of numbers in this house and, therefore, it has the right to govern. In turn, it gives them the right to decide how the many billions of dollars that we receive as a state will be spent and how the government will prioritise its spending.

No-one denies their right to do that, nor should anyone deny the opposition the right to question the government about exactly how it will be spending that money. Yet what we have now is a process that is almost a cat and mouse game of ministers trying to hide the real problems in the budget which might cause concern to the wider public. For instance, the announcement about country health and the plan for it was put onto a website at 5 o'clock on a Friday afternoon, rather than being really announced.

If it was a process of which the government was proud there is no doubt in my mind Mike Rann himself would have been beside minister John Hill making a big announcement about how the government would improve country health. Instead of that, it was quietly slotted onto a website. I do not think we will know the truth of what will happen until we see the budgets produced by the individual hospitals in a couple of months.

Indeed, over the next couple of years, if this government continues down this path—personally I think they should change their minds and think about what they are doing—there is no doubt it will do more surreptitious damage to country hospitals, all the while trying to stop people from realising what is going on. As I said, it has become something of a cat and mouse game.

When I came into budget estimates I saw a number of public servants sitting in this chamber, often for many hours. Many of them never made it onto the floor of the chamber—they were in the Speaker's Gallery. On some occasions I counted as many as 16 public servants—and, in fact, on one occasion more than that—sitting there and waiting in case someone on the opposition benches managed to ask a question to which an answer was not available instantly from the one or two people who were flanking the minister at the table.

I would love to do the time/cost analysis of that because no doubt it would cost a lot of money when the most senior public servants in the state—for instance, CEOs earn $300,000-plus—are sitting here for hours. Then there is the next layer of underlings, and the next layer, and the various heads of agencies that are called in before us. I doubt many people on less than $100,000 a year would be part of the crew who come in to do the budget process. Members should think about the hourly rate of all those people and the cost of their sitting here for all the hours the budget estimates continue and, more importantly, the number of hours they all have put into the process of preparing for budget estimates.

As a result of my contact with various government departments and agencies prior to coming into this place, I know that people become anxious prior to budget estimates because they have to prepare 'in case a question is asked'. It strikes me as just a silly mechanism. The way in which we go about it is an incredibly time-consuming, expensive exercise which does not achieve anything.

I maybe old-fashioned and out of touch and not willing to move into the 21st century, but I was a public servant many years ago. In those days public servants were clearly seen as impartial people, not there to do the bidding of a particular government but, rather, run the departments. Certainly, they would take their direction from a government, but they were not just the handmaidens of government. They were without fear or favour. They were meant to be able to give advice without fear or favour to both Labor and Liberal governments—I am not trying to suggest that only the Labor Party has been guilty of this—even if it was advice that the government did not want.

Increasingly, we now have a Public Service where people are paid high salaries. We have lost, largely, the concept of permanency in the Public Service and security of tenure. When I was a public servant the reality was that if you chose a career in the Public Service—and it was very much the 'public service' you were working for—then you did so knowing that you would never be remunerated at a rate equivalent to what you might earn in private practice but, on the other hand, you had the benefit of security of tenure, holidays, long service leave and sick leave, and all the sorts of things I know from my time in private practice that you do not get very often when you are running your own business.

My personal view is that it has been a mistake for successive governments to increasingly trend towards a situation where jobs for the boys are created, and people without the necessary qualifications and experience are placed into high ranking Public Service positions—executive directors of agencies, commissioners and CEOs. They are placed on contract. I often think that having people on contract will diminish their ability to give advice without fear or favour.

We pay them at a rate that is really commensurate with what they would earn in the private sector and, in many cases, in my view, is well in excess of what they would be competent to earn in the private sector. I am not looking to blame public servants for any of this. I just think that, as a way of running the state, over many years, we have made a mistake and reduced the quality of our Public Service. I often say that our Public Service has now become rife with people with double degrees in buck-passing and backside covering—and that is high on the agenda for most public servants.

Instead of having an agenda of how can we help you, every public servant looks at every decision thinking, 'How might this get me into strife and how can I avoid it?' At the very first economic development summit before the Economic Development Board was established, one of the very first findings of our group who met in the parliament was that that is exactly the problem with our Public Service at the moment; that is, we have this attitude of backside covering and fear of making a mistake because of the fear of the political consequences of that mistake.

Whereas, I take the old view that people such as ministers should be responsible and the public servants, who are simply carrying out the directions of the minister, should not be expected to take the wrap. However, when you start paying them at these high salaries and take away their permanence, then you start to get a very muddled picture of just what is the role of the public servant.

As I said, the whole process of estimates is a ridiculous waste of time. It is very much a cat and mouse game, with the government trying to hide things in the budget and really allowing insufficient time for the real examination of the budget. No more telling evidence of that is needed than the fact that the government consistently has its Dorothy Dix questions. That is just a total inane waste of time. It is really meant to use up the time, because the timetable is structured by the government to minimise the chances that the opposition will find out what is really being done in the budget.

As I said at the outset, I have no argument with the fact that the government is the government: it has the majority; it is entitled to govern; and it is entitled to set the agenda and the priorities. The problem is that it does not seem to recognise that the opposition is equally entitled to understand what the priorities are and to question how the money is being spent, because our job as an opposition is to test the government and to ensure that money is not being simply wasted. The member for MacKillop gave a number of examples of waste over the years and, indeed, in more recent times and in the current budget by the current government.

Again, I do not make this complaint about just this government. I think both sides have been guilty. It has probably grown up and become more of the farce we know today over many years. It is also often a case of ministers protecting their public servants or vice versa because sometimes the public servants are protecting the ministers. One of the things that also concerns me about this process is that it can often result in damage to relationships that should be working relationships, whether that be between ministers and shadow ministers or others on the opposition who are questioning the minister, or between shadow ministers and the senior public servants who are sometimes engaged in almost direct debate with the members.

It seems to me that there must be a more productive way in which we could use our time than the process that we have just spent two weeks going through. For what it is worth, I will offer a few suggestions about how I think our budget estimates process could be improved. It is not an exhaustive suggestion list, but here are a few of the things that I think we might do. For a start, it seems to me to be a nonsense that we can allow Legislative Councillors in here as ministers to answer questions but we do not allow Legislative Councillors in here as shadow ministers to ask questions. That seems to me to be nonsensical, and I can see no rational reason why one would not change that.

I also think that we could use more rooms over fewer days. There is no reason why we need to have simply committees A and B. We actually have the Old Chamber, the Plaza Room and various other rooms that we could use, and we could run the budget estimates over a much shorter time than the two weeks it takes at present, if we were to make that more flexible. We could delete the Dorothy Dixers, and note that, in my view, this is a good trade-off point because, if we deleted Dorothy Dixers, then the government MPs (all the backbenchers) could work in their electorates. I am sure that they would find that much more productive than sitting there for hours at a time asking Dorothy Dix questions.

As I said at the outset, I just hate wasting time. The other thing I would do, though, is allow the opposition to set the timetable over the days. I say that because, at the moment, for instance, in my attorney-general and justice shadow portfolio, I had 45 minutes to examine the Attorney on the Attorney-General's portfolio, which has a budget of nigh on $100 million. I had 30 minutes (two thirds of the amount of time) to examine him on the State Electoral Office. That has a budget of just over $2 million. It has half a dozen people working for it, it does a very good job and it is really non-contentious.

It strikes me that it would be a more productive process if we looked at the budget and gave a bit of forewarning as to what areas we would like to engage in further discussion. Indeed, I think it would be better to be more of a round-table process than the formality of the question process that we have at the moment. After all, the object of the exercise is for us to understand what the government is doing with our money, that is, the taxpayers of South Australia's money, and to be able to test the government on whether it is in any way wasting that money. I think that there could be a much more productive discussion if we were able to identify the particular areas over which we would like to ask questions but not put time limits on the amount of questioning, because that makes it very difficult.

If we had a more mature discussion about these issues, it seems to me we could then cut down dramatically on the number of public servants who have to be here. I did not recognise all the people in the gallery, but, when the Attorney-General's line is being examined, you could have everyone from the Ombudsman to the Public Trustee and the DPP—all sorts of people. If I did not have any questions on that particular area, there would be no need to involve that highly paid individual sitting in the gallery in case a question is asked. It seems to me that there is a lot more we could do more sensibly.

Another problem that I have with the budget estimates process is not only the time limit but also the fact that there is an opening statement by the minister. I remember that one former minister—one of the ministers in the previous Labor government—took 23 minutes of a one-hour allocation of time to make an opening statement. If there must be an opening statement, and I do not see that it is necessary, I suggest it should be limited to about two minutes.

Then there is the necessity to read in the omnibus questions. Why could we not just have a rule to say, 'Here are our omnibus questions. They apply to every minister and every agency or department under that minister's control'? Let us put the omnibus questions on the record in the way we put second reading speeches on the record in this place. When I worked in the parliament of New South Wales, I had to write different speeches every time a bill went before the parliament—lower house or upper house—because it was always read in full. There was none of this just sticking it onto the record by saying, 'I seek leave to insert the remainder of the speech.' Yet, we are forced to read those omnibus questions countless times over the six days, thus again using up the time but not actually doing anything to produce an outcome.

Another niggly little thing is the idea that we all have to be signed in and out for this process. Why on earth can the opposition not just turn up with whoever it wants and ask the questions, instead of having this silly process whereby everyone has to sign bits of paper saying that the member for Bragg has been replaced by the member for Heysen and the member for Heysen gets replaced by the member for Schubert, and so on? It is a ridiculous time-wasting and paper-wasting exercise that has no effect.

Those are my comments on some of the things that I think we might do to improve this process. I have now been through several of these committees, and I think I am getting better at it, but I still find it an incredible waste of time to go through budget estimates in the way we do. I am sure a rational committee, comprising people from both sides, could come up with a better system. In fact, anyone could come up with a better system if they sat down for five minutes and thought about how we might approach the issue. Once again, I say that I have no issue with the government's being entitled to decide its priorities. It is the government, it has the majority and it is entitled to govern. We, as the opposition, are entitled to test the government and make sure it is not wasting the taxpayers' money in this state, but why can we not have a process that is more productive and less time-wasting?

Time expired.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:04): When the member for Little Para (the former minister for health in this government) described the health system in South Australia as 'stuffed', I was a little surprised; but now, in the last two years, having shadowed the issue of health on behalf of the opposition, I find that if it was not stuffed before it certainly is now. It was seriously haemorrhaging at that point and everything that the government has done that it projected and promised would improve the situation, I suggest, has been shallow and insincere in its promise and commitment and absolutely empty in its delivery. Let me highlight today, after budget estimates, confirmation of why that is the case.

First, we have the announcement of the government two years ago that it would, at a cost of $1.677 billion (nearly $1.7 billion) plus another $2 billion to clean up a rail yard, build a new hospital. The opposition said, and our position remains, that that is a complete waste of money and that the government had the opportunity and should have continued to rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital on its current site. We then found that it was the glossy, shiny presentation to cover what was to be the decimation of other metropolitan hospitals in a health plan that the government published the day before last year's budget.

During estimates this year we found that the $1.677 billion disappears from the budget, and it is explained by the fact that the government now does not know how much it will spend on this project because it has now decided to proceed through a PPP proposal and, therefore, the information as to what this project will cost is now no longer available. It seems that it has been available in the past for prisons, schools and other projects that will be developed under PPPs but now, suddenly, the figure the government thinks it will spend for the new Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital has disappeared.

We also had the staggering admission by the minister that he has not proceeded to undertake preparation of the report to comply with section 23 of the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 and, during estimates, he stated to the committee that he believed the project would be approved as a major work pursuant to a ministerial PAR and he was progressing that. That is how he started in the questioning on this and, right at the end of the period of nearly four years of questioning, he jumped in with a little bit of additional information to tell the committee that by the end of the calendar year a report will be prepared as is required under the act.

So there should be because, of course, the prescribed time limit is 18 months from the time of the announcement. It seems that sometime between the beginning of that questioning and the end of the questioning by the committee, someone told him that he would have to prepare a report, that it would be underway and that it would be provided within the time limit.

This is very important because throughout the committee, the minister continued to say, 'We're going to proceed with this project, don't think anything's going to stop us.' I point out the arrogance of the government in saying that this was going to happen no matter what, given the legislation and its obligation to provide a report and the opportunity for parliament to consider the report and refer any of its recommendations and/or concerns to the Environment Resources and Development Committee. These are all parliamentary processes which obviously the minister holds in contempt; he thinks they do not need to be attended to. Clearly, the government has not obtained consent for this and it has no idea of the cost, yet it is progressing into the second year of spending multi-millions of dollars before it even has the parliament's approval to do so.

This is a shocking mess and a disgraceful waste of money. If members want a small example of where the government is wasting money along the way, it is the $15 million that it wants to spend on relocating the Renal Transplant Unit from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the additional surgical facilities that will need to be moved. It wants to spend $15 million on moving this unit to a hospital that it is going to bulldoze to build its new hospital. What an utter waste of money.

Then we move to mental health. This was illuminating information. We have already had the announcement by the Premier that he is going to build a $44 million movie theatre—a movie hub and studio—at the Glenside Hospital. The budget reveals that his department is going to pay $2.5 million for what we now know after estimates is a 2.77-hectare property in a prime location on the Glenside site, with improvements. The government claims that it had a valuation for this little pick-up on behalf of the Premier, to cherry-pick out the heritage centre of the Glenside Hospital, and that he is, in fact, going to buy it.

The most disgusting aspect of this is that not only is this portion of the site going to be carved up for the movie theatre but the government suddenly has $44 million-plus to buy a piece of land to develop a movie theatre when we have people on the street who are in desperate need of mental health services. What is utterly disgusting is that it has told the local community that it has to sell off 42 per cent for private housing, a supermarket and the development of retail facilities, when the region around this hospital is probably the best serviced in the whole of South Australia, but it says that it has to do that because it needs the money for this redevelopment for mental health.

What utter nonsense. The government has multimillions of dollars to spend on a movie theatre. Then we find that the two and a half million dollars that the Premier is going to pay to buy his little piece of beautiful real estate is not even going to go towards the mental health budget. That money will go into the Department for Environment and Heritage and goodness knows where it will go from there, but it will not even go back into the mental health revenue stream.

Given that this site has been operating since 1870 for mental health services in this state and is now the only stand-alone facility provided in this state and the only facility for country people, it is utterly contemptible of this government to say that it needs to have the money and then, when it sells off bits, that the proceeds are not even going to go into mental health.

I receive letters regularly from distraught patients and relatives of patients. I received one just this morning from a grandmother of a paranoid schizophrenic 32 year old. He has been living in 10 or so different places and he has had multiple admissions to acute mental health services in the state. He has attempted to live with his mother; he has been violent and destructive. She has tried to be sympathetic to his cause, but is clearly at risk herself and has been advised to take out a restraining order. He has been a patient at Glenside and she asks, not surprisingly, 'What good is a film studio if we cannot afford to care for our mentally sick citizens?'

She asks a very good question. It is about time the government came clean about why it is not providing for real people with real sickness, instead of relocating a movie studio when the SA Film Corporation has a perfectly good facility at its Hendon site in the industrial region. It is utterly despicable that the government should give this priority when it knows that there are people in the community who are heavily burdened with the responsibility of caring for people (mostly family members) who are chronically psychiatrically ill.

The Country Health Care Plan was launched on the website of the Department of Health about an hour and a half after the budget was delivered in this place and about half an hour after the parliament closed down for the session. How convenient! Why this did this not get the same fanfare from the Premier and the minister as the metropolitan health plan did the previous year? Obviously, it is because bad news has to be buried.

The response to this plan has been an enormous groundswell from people who live in the country and right across professional organisations sympathetic to their cause. Never in the short time that I have been in the parliament have I known so many people from different walks of life come together—to condemn this health plan. We have the Australian Nurses Federation, the Rural Doctors Association (both federal and state), Women in Agriculture and Business, and the Country Women's Association. Communities from across the state are holding rallies and information sessions in town halls and on the streets to get information and to express their absolute disquiet, at best, and disgust, at worst, in respect of this program. Let me say that the Liberal Party's position is absolutely clear: it will not close any country hospitals or change the services that it provides—unless the local community asks for it.

The Country Health Care Plan, if in 640-odd days I am the Minister for Health, will be binned, for a number of very good reasons. Notwithstanding the government's mantra that the 450,000 people who live in the country will be better off health-wise, will have to travel less and it will be more equitable for them, on every count the country health plan fails.

First, the rural communities will lose their doctors if they do not have hospital facilities, including acute care. This very simple message has come from the professional people and from the doctors themselves: if you have no hospital, no doctor and no workforce, you have no town. There is a very clear message there. Secondly, rural people also pay tax and are entitled to a share of the funding. They represent a third of the population, and are currently getting one-seventh of the acute care budget. That alone is absolutely unjust, let alone the inequity of the services that have failed to be provided in other areas.

Thirdly, the government claims that the plan will give better health outcomes, but refuses to provide evidence of this. Education centres simply cannot replace a hospital bed. It is one thing to educate people to drink less alcohol, to eat less food and to eat lettuce sandwiches and do all the things that are good for preventative health. However, the reality is that, in the real world, there are people out there who have illnesses and have continuing requirements and people who have accidents and, certainly, whether they are on the road or in a mine or anywhere else in those communities, they need those health services.

I note that there was mention recently in the government's report on health services that emergency department demand in the country has gone up. It mentions that demand has risen in the city, but it must have completely ignored the fact that it has gone up in the country. We have one of the worst suicide rates in the country in South Australia. There are major issues out there, and the government thinks that through this plan it will provide people with better health services. What utter nonsense.

Fifthly, the plan proposes placing general hospitals in the most ridiculous locations I have ever heard of. If the government is going to enhance major hospitals with services to ensure that people can go to them instead of travelling to Adelaide, one would think the smartest thing it could have done would be to locate them where they would be closer to Adelaide rather than the ridiculous locations it has selected. Most of the people in the country live east of Port Augusta or north of Keith, and it will be quicker for them to go to Adelaide than Berri, Port Lincoln, Whyalla or Mount Gambier (three of which, I note, are in the seats where the government has cuddled up to the Independents in the Labor cabinet or its only single Labor country member). It had to have a fourth one, so I suppose the seat held by the Liberals had to get one, because they have such a massive number on the West Coast.

Sixthly, the plan claims that it will halve services in some hospitals with a specialist workforce, which is totally inconsistent with the claim that it will have to scale down other hospitals because it cannot get doctors or nurses. Members of the government should make up their mind: they can either get doctors and specialists in the country or they cannot. The other absurd thing is that they say, 'We are going to increase primary health services: dieticians, speech pathologists and anyone else out there who can provide services.' If they cannot get doctors and nurses in some of these locations, how will they get those other people there? There are absolutely no answers from the government.

Seventhly, no detail has been given as to what services will be provided in these hospitals and what will be removed in others or when this will occur. The claim is that they are still out consulting and, in fact, the government has said that it will appoint a task force with an independent chair (who is unnamed) and representatives (who are unnamed and unidentified). That is entirely a reaction to the outcry about this matter and it has not been given any serious consideration. Frankly, why has this consultation with rural people in these communities not happened before?

The eighth point is there is no corresponding provision for transport and accommodation costs for patients and families affected by the plan. There is already a shortage with respect to volunteer ambulance support, and for relatives to attempt these transfers has been identified as hazardous. I have received hundreds of letters on this issue alone from people who will not be able to visit relatives or friends or who will be in a hazardous and dangerous situation in transporting a family if they cannot get any other services in the local community to do that. This has been totally underestimated by the government, and the estimates hearing has indicated to me that the government has no idea what it is doing about this issue.

The government has not dealt with the statewide retrieval issue services. It has made no provision for extra funding for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. It has made some extra provision for the SA Ambulance Service, which provides a road service in a number of areas in country South Australia. However, after weeks of asking the minister, both during estimates and on the last day that parliament sat, he still cannot tell us what the extra provision of those moneys will be used for in the country. He then had the audacity to tell us in estimates that they will not need very much because, under his plan, more country people who are currently coming to Adelaide will stay with these hospitals, with unknown services and services that have been cut. How ridiculous. This plan is full of holes and will clearly not do what it says it will.

The ninth point is that the consultation has been an absolute sham. The government should never have removed the boards from these hospitals, which were the influential voice for the hospitals, before the consultation concluded. So, the government will axe the boards, gag the staff but expect to have some kind of real input from people through this task force, which he will hand pick.

The 10th point is that the budget has already been tabled in the parliament and provides less money for current services in all the country hospitals before the consultation has even finished. So, the money has already disappeared. We will vote today on this budget, it will pass, and the cuts will already be there. It will just be a question of when country people will finally find out what they will and what they will not get.

Finally, the hospital staff have been ignored and instructed not to speak, when their livelihood is at risk. I am very pleased that the Australian Nursing Federation has come out and provided its own petition and conducted a survey of its members. Sure, it applauds any government that wants to enhance hospitals or add more preventative medicine measures. That is a great idea: no-one disagrees with that. But the government should not execute other services, and the nurses federation makes the point very clearly that it will not accept that condemnation. Even the head of the National Party came out with a statement to condemn this plan (although I note that he has tempered his words a bit with another plan, saying they are out consulting now). So, someone has obviously got to him, because he is a very naughty boy for doing that.

There are two other things that I want to mention about consultation. Firstly, no regional impact statement has been prepared with respect to this plan. That in direct contravention of the government's obligations in relation to this matter, which are to provide an impact plan for cabinet before it makes decisions on these things and while it is dealing with it. However, that has not done been done. Interestingly, during estimates, the Minister for Health initially said, 'No, we are considering the impact it has had on communities with respect to the previous loss of services.' There was no reference to the impact statement at all.

Later in the afternoon, the Minister for Regional Development told estimates that they were actually getting started on one of them, that it was going to happen—all of which is too late; this has already been published. It is all very well to come out with the detail, but, frankly, had they done a regional impact statement on how it would utterly destroy these towns and communities—with a loss of contracts to local service providers under new procurement arrangements, and all these things—there is no way that any one of them could sit there and make a decision to support axing the hospital care program in South Australian rural communities. It is utterly deceitful, and, clearly, the government does not care about it and does not want to know about it.

Even members of the Premier's Council for Women were not consulted about this important plan during estimates. These are women who are providing care for children, the aged and infirm. The nursing workforce is largely made up of women. It is women out there in those communities having babies, who are having their obstetric services cut out of the plan, yet the Premier's Council for Women was not even shown a copy of this nor asked its opinion about whether this is a good plan for women in South Australia. It is supposed to be a cross-portfolio responsibility, as a premier council, to advise the cabinet and the Premier on these issues, and it has been cut out of the loop altogether. It is an utter sham. Country people are speaking up. We had a rally of 1,000 people, and there have also been country meetings all around South Australia at which hundreds have attended and spoken up.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:24): I am in the fortunate position of not having to attend estimates, not because I know everything—I do not know much at all. I have been through that near-death experience many times, and, as the member for Heysen recently argued in this chamber, it is in need of significant reform. It is, to some extent, a waste of not only members' time but also that of the public servants who have to prepare for weeks and weeks on the off chance that they might get a question on some particular aspect of the area in which they work.

I will not say who it was, but a senior public servant once told me that he would be happy to hand over his folders to members of parliament, and that they could read them. This very highly respected senior person said, 'We are happy to hand them over to MPs to have a look at our complete activities.' I think that would be more satisfactory than the current selective arrangement for estimates committees.

First, I will comment upon the government and how it is performing. I understand that the Premier will reshuffle cabinet shortly, and I think that is a good thing. Without reflecting on particular ministers, after a while some of them get tired and ground down. Certain portfolios are incredibly demanding, and, for the welfare of those ministers and for the benefit of South Australia, some ministers probably need to be given a different portfolio. As I have indicated on previous occasions, I think it so important that we have one minister for water, covering all aspects above and below ground and all issues dealing with water, and not split it, as is currently the case.

I think the government is plodding along. There is still a lot of spin, but it has tried to deal with the perception that it has become arrogant and out of touch. There are some areas where the government is treading very dangerously—for example, teachers—and I will come back to that in a moment. My prediction is that the next election will be a lot closer than many people think. In that respect, I think the opposition is having an impact. Whilst I do not always agree with the Leader of the Opposition (I am sure the feeling is mutual), there is no doubt that the opposition is making an impact on the government and will continue to do so in the lead-up to the election. My observation is that the opposition needs to get all its shadow ministers firing if it really wants to make a big impact, and not just leave it, as it does often, to the leader.

I will address the specifics of some issues. Recently, we had a situation—and it is still ongoing in part—concerning salaries for doctors in our public hospitals. Frankly, the behaviour of some doctors has been most unfortunate and borders on blackmail. I do not deny anyone with a degree of responsibility, who has put in a lot of time for training and developing their skills, being properly rewarded, and I do not think anyone would deny that. I would have thought that if you cannot live on $300,000 plus a year there is something sadly amiss.

We have the silly comparative argument that we have to get so much because someone else is getting so much, or that we have to have parity with other states. Sure, but that becomes a never-ending argument and self-justification for ratcheting up pay over time, which is fine if the economy is generating the additional wealth to sustain those pay claims; but pay claims that go beyond what the economy is generating are foolhardy. Taken to extreme, if you are not careful, you end up with the situation confronting Zimbabwe, where the economy is in tatters because there is no regard for the realities of economic principles.

People say, 'Well, doctors have people's lives in their hands.' So do a lot of other people in the community; for example, paramedics, who do not earn anywhere near that sort of money. In fairness, people say that they have not had the same degree of training, but they still have that responsibility, as do pilots, nurses and a lot of other people. The argument that they have people's lives in their hands can be exaggerated. Sure, they should be paid an appropriate amount, but it should not be determined, in my view, through enterprise bargaining, which is basically a phoney exercise because the government is bargaining with taxpayers' money. It is not their own personal money.

It is not like a personal, private business, where the employer wants some trade-off of extra work and extra hours in return for extra pay. A government, whether it is local, state or federal, is in the phoney business of so-called enterprise bargaining because the money is not coming directly out of their pocket if they give an increase to a salaried medical officer or a teacher or anyone else. I think the sooner we move back to a full-blown conciliation and arbitration system the better, because what we need is an independent umpire who can take account of productivity in the community—and that system should apply to MPs as well as to anyone else.

In relation to teachers, I do not believe the government is in a position to offer more than it has, not because teachers do not deserve more but because the government has not allocated enough money to pay teachers what they should be paid. It is very dangerous politically for a government to get teachers offside. I have always had a theory in politics that, if you have your schools and your teachers on side, you are part way there to electoral success. So, I think the government needs to be very careful about not alienating teachers.

I think the teachers union, in particular, needs to back off in terms of some of its so-called conditions, requests or requirements because research evidence suggests that, once you get down to a certain number of students in a classroom, dropping below does not get a commensurate benefit in terms of educational outcomes, but the cost of reducing class sizes is significant. A better strategy would be to pay teachers significantly more and, at the same time, get rid of that small percentage of dead wood that exists in the teaching profession.

Only last night, I met with some teachers from the Adelaide Hills area, and they told me that at the school one of them attends one teacher is barely at school on time (she usually rocks in after most of the other classes are established and rocks out at 3.30), she puts in minimal effort and does not really like children. You would have to ask: why in heaven's name is someone like that allowed to continue as a teacher?

I am not anti-union—I was always a member of the union when I was employed in education—but the union backs up those non-performers and goes in to bat for them, and the department does not give the principal or the governing council any authority to get rid of a non-performer. This whole education issue is not simply about pay and, in the broader context, it is not simply about class sizes; it is also about acknowledging that a small percentage of teachers should not be in front of children. It is a form of child abuse and it should not be tolerated.

In regard to other issues, the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education indicated that the government is sympathetic to accelerated training for apprentices and trainees. In theory, that seems fine, but we have to be very careful that we do not end up compromising the skill level, and we have to make sure that people not only develop those skills and absorb them over a period of time during their training but also have the social maturity that goes with being a qualified tradesperson or technical person.

There are moves afoot to accelerate training for pilots. I do not know about other members, but I would prefer to fly in a plane where the pilot has not been put through a pressure cooker course but has been required to not only study and attend university but also has had many, many hours of supervised experience sitting next to a well-experienced pilot.

If we are not careful, under the guise of 'we need people quickly for the so-called skills boom', we will end up with people who are inadequately trained, and that would be a disaster not only for them but also for the wider community. So, I caution the government to be very careful about accelerated training. I know that interstate there is talk that, instead of a four-year training course for chefs, it should be 18 months. Well, that is a nonsense—and that applies also in other categories where you try to accelerate training rapidly.

In education, we are not seeing the significant reforms that I think DECS should be subjected to. It is still a highly centralised and bureaucratic system, with little authority given to principals and governing councils to make decisions about anything. To suggest that somehow the school is managing the salaries component because it is listed in its budget is an absolute nonsense: it is not managing the salaries at all. There needs to be a fundamental overhaul of state education in this state, otherwise we will see a further decline in the state school system.

Other issues that have arisen and been touched on in estimates relate to the question of global warming and climate change. Once again, it is a very important and complex topic. What we are seeing now is a move towards bringing in special levies to deal with climate change, and I question the need for and the desirability of these. I note this week that one council will increase its revenue by $600,000 on the pretext of dealing with climate change.

If you want to deal with CO2 emissions, you cut back on activities that produce CO2. What we are seeing with so-called carbon offsets is a con job. We are saying that you can continue to produce carbon as long as you offset it by having some trees planted elsewhere. In my view, it is a bit of a con because it is a bit like saying that you can keep robbing banks as long as you make a donation to some approved charity: you are not cutting back on inappropriate activity or behaviour. You should be cutting it back or cutting it out, not being given a licence, in effect, to continue to contribute to the problem of global warming.

I suggest that, if any government goes down the path of putting a climate change levy on petrol, it would be sealing its fate, because the price of petrol will increase over time and act as its own deterrent to people using petrol when they should be more economical or use alternatives. This raises the point of what we can do in relation to alternative fuels. In Adelaide, I think we could do a lot in terms of using compressed natural gas, of which Australia has enormous reserves.

I spoke recently with Leon Holmes, who is the President of the RAA and a former head of Shell. He said that, in the metropolitan area, it is quite feasible to run private vehicles on compressed natural gas but, obviously, you need outlets that serve it. Some of the buses owned by the government run on compressed natural gas, and I notice that the week before last the government called for tenders to refurbish the refuelling facility using compressed natural gas at the Morphettville bus depot. We should be moving very quickly and Adelaide, and South Australia in particular, is an ideal spot to be innovative in terms of using alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas.

I have had dealings with many people who would like to use electric vehicles, but there are many restrictions and regulations that make it difficult to use electric motor bikes or electric cars. I think this is an issue we need to address quickly. However, to generate electricity we will contribute to global warming, particularly if coal-fired power stations are used. So, it is not a panacea in itself if the electricity is generated in a traditional coal-fired operation.

I note, too, that the government announced that MPs can now purchase or lease a different sort of vehicle from the traditional enforced V6. I have not seen the details spelt out but, until now anyway, it has been impossible to have a smaller car through the lease system. I think that they should be considered because hybrid vehicles are not cheap, and some of the smaller diesels (particularly little four-cylinder diesels) are probably the most economical and environmentally friendly vehicles available. I understand why the government has supported the bigger car—in order to support Holden and Mitsubishi (when it was producing the 380)—but, if the government is fair dinkum about the environment, it needs to move to a new level of allowing MPs and StateFleet to have smaller four cylinder cars, including diesel vehicles.

I note that there are significant problems in the government car auction system. The government is not receiving bids for many cars, and many are being passed in and then being privately negotiated. It is clear that the market has turned against the traditional V6 car, and I cannot see any change occurring in that consumption pattern in the near future.

In relation to transport, which was a big feature of this budget—and I commend, once again, the government for that—many of us would like to see all the transport initiatives done by yesterday, but the minister is to be congratulated on what is a far-reaching program to improve the rail network and, ultimately, electrify at least some of the major suburban lines.

I would like to see the government go further in relation to light rail. I applaud the proposed extension of light rail, but the government should be much more imaginative and spell out a light rail network which could extend to the Adelaide Hills using the freeway and to Mount Barker, Aberfoyle Park and other areas in the metropolitan area. The fact that it all cannot be done at once is not a problem and should not generate criticism for the government, but the government needs to lay out a total public transport plan, even if it takes five, 10 or 15 years to implement. I have written to the federal government asking it to come to the party to assist the government provide the extended light rail system.

In relation to corruption measures, I agree with the government that we do not need a standing ICAC, but the government needs to ensure that there is a mechanism in place to trigger an inquiry if there is evidence of corruption. To that end, there needs to be a review of the powers of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has significant powers now. The Police Complaints Authority needs to be completely reviewed. I do not believe that we have genuine accountability of police in this state; I think that needs to be overhauled. The Auditor-General needs the power to have oversight of local government, including the business operations of councils.

If those things were done, along with a trigger mechanism to call someone from the independent bar for a corruption inquiry, we could avoid the $15 million a year cost of an ICAC. I have written to the Premier and the Attorney-General suggesting that those aspects relating to the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General and the Police Complaints Authority be reviewed and overhauled.

In terms of planning, I will not have time to go into the detail but the government is seeking to simplify the system. That is a fine objective, but I hope in the process that local views and local opinions are not completely excluded. We want efficiency but not at the expense of consideration of the reasonable views of people living in South Australia.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:44): As one of the people who has had some degree of responsibility and been involved in all six days of estimates—not for each session, mind you—and having done that for three consecutive years now, I do feel as though—

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Newland says that I am a glutton for punishment. You turn up bright eyed and bushytailed on the very first morning, looking forward to what you will find out but, by the end of the sixth day, it is somewhat of a chore to still be sitting there. There are many opportunities to find out information, I must admit. Sometimes it might be the most innocuous little things which you pick up but which will be a future reference for you. There is no doubt that, when we come into this place, no matter what has prepared us for our role as a member of parliament, we certainly have much to learn.

The budget estimates process allows us to ask detailed questions and to pursue lines of questioning to ensure that the issues which are important to the people and the communities which we represent are covered and we get answers. I look forward to it. I hate being separated from my family, I must admit—and I am looking forward finally to getting home on Friday night—but it is a great chance for us.

I do recognise that the member for Heysen made some comments—and I was sitting in the chamber on the very first day when she made her comments—about the cost of preparing for estimates and the benefit being difficult to stack up. I respect her comments, but I still think that some form of opportunity for questioning needs to exist. I note in the federal parliament that Senate estimates run most of the year, and there is an opportunity to talk at length and to obtain information from public servants and ministers.

I think that what we do here is not perfect—and we would all acknowledge that—but it would be far worse not to have the opportunity to ask questions. I would much prefer to live in this society and operate under the rules and the constitution which we do and which allows for questioning to occur of governments than to live in other countries where that opportunity is not available.

A couple of things that occur are rather intriguing to me. The fact that government members are allowed to ask questions should not happen. It is interesting to note that the ministers who walk into either committee A or B and who are confident in their roles will not do that. They are happy to provide the opportunity for the opposition to ask as many questions as it likes.

The Treasurer is one of the best examples. He walks in with a positive body language. He believes that he has an answer for every question, although sometimes it is not the answer that we think is appropriate, and he makes sure that other members do that, too. I recognise that minister Hill has done it in the past, even when he has deputised for other ministers who are unavailable. For example, two years ago, when minister Wright was absent through illness, minister Hill acted for him. Even though he had not held some of those portfolios for about a year or so, he was able to answer the majority of questions.

It is important that we get it right. I would like to see the removal of government questions and just the opportunity for the opposition to enforce its line of questioning. I can accept that we would still have an opening statement, although I think the time should be restricted, especially when an area has only been allocated a short amount of time. The opening statement should be limited to probably five, seven minutes maximum, because if you cannot express matters of importance in that time, it is unfortunate.

In making my comments about my involvement in the past six days, first, I make particular mention of country health. I know the member for Bragg has spoken about this at length—and I know that other members will also refer to it—but there is no doubt that it is the key issue facing communities in my electorate. Since the release of the Country Health Care Plan on budget night via the website, I have been inundated with telephone calls, emails, letters and people talking to me in the street and at every function I attend about country health. People want to know what will happen to their hospital.

In an effort to give people the opportunity to be informed about the Country Health Care Plan, I convened a meeting at Yorketown on Tuesday of last week. I was confident of good numbers attending the meeting, there was no doubt about that. I had grown up in that community and I know many of the people. I knew that not only did so many of them have a direct association with the hospital but they also recognise the important role the hospital plays in that town.

Seven hundred people attended—and I must emphasise: 700 people. They filled the top and bottom part of the hall, they were standing on the sides and they were in the supper room listening through the public address system because they were interested. People spoke for about an hour. Local government members attended and the local doctor, Dr George Kokar, spoke. He received a thunderous round of applause. He has been practising in Yorketown for 35 years, so that did not surprise me.

I had the opportunity to speak and the shadow minister for health also spoke briefly; and, importantly, we gave representatives of Country Health the opportunity to put the plan into perspective and to provide a brief outline. Then the next 1.25 hours of the meeting was devoted to questions and comments from the floor.

This was a big commitment. It was a cold night. We had 700 people in the hall and four roving microphones, trying to give every person who wanted to ask a question or make a statement an opportunity to speak, and I think we did so before exhaustion set in and people were ready to go home. But, in that hour and a quarter, it became evident to me that the passion that exists in that community for its hospitals is overwhelming. These people were quite controlled. They could have been abusive to any of the people sitting on the stage, especially the Country Health representative, but they chose not to be. There were a few comments but they were controlled. People were quite reasonable in the way they put their questions. They were not abusive towards anyone but they wanted answers.

It is regrettable that the Country Health representative, who turned up in good faith (I recognise that), was unable to give the sort of detail that people wanted to hear. Since then, we have noted that it is a bit of a changing feast. The minister has made a lot of statements in the last week and a half. I note that the Yorke Peninsula Country Times, which is a newspaper serving part of my electorate, had a 40-minute interview with the minister last week. His comments in that interview I think are on the front page of the local paper this week in great detail, and he certainly gives a commitment that the Yorketown hospital will retain a lot of its services. He notes the fact that obstetrics will be lost. I am told that one of the two doctors there is quite happy for that to continue, but there are issues regarding midwives as well. But, if the community had had that information, it might have been a different position.

The frustrating thing, however, is we are now told that Country Health hospitals are actually categorised into three or four different areas and some have commitments over the next 10 years, and some will suffer through a lack of suitable staff and a reduction in services. The question I would ask, however, is: what is the health system doing to ensure that the recruitment process is occurring early enough? When there is a possibility of a staff member leaving, and that is identified, what is being done to ensure the appointment of a replacement immediately upon the departure of the first person?

Frustratingly, we were told that when a vacancy is about to occur there is no automatic instigation of human resources processes to ensure that a replacement comes. They wait until the first person leaves and there is a relatively small advertisement placed—or however health staff are recruited—often resulting in these positions not being able to be filled in a short time, or even a long time, and people do not accept that. They want to ensure their hospitals operate at full capacity, and it is important for us that we do.

While there were 700 people at the meeting at Yorketown, and I have another meeting at Balaklava tonight which I am sure will fill the hall also, we heard that at Bordertown last night there were 1,500 people—1,000 people in the hall and 500 standing outside. They stood and listened to people speak and, if that is not an overwhelming sign of what a community thinks (given that Bordertown has a population of 2,500), I have never seen it.

On a cold night in the South-East, for 1,500 people to come out shows that they are committed. They wanted answers, and I am not sure whether they got them all. Let us hope that, now the minister has appointed a task force, he will consult. Let us hope that some amendments come forward and people are informed about what is in the health care plan and they are not given just a collection of words that do not give any surety. Let us make sure we improve.

Over the six days I had an opportunity to be involved in the estimates committees—some in which I had direct responsibility to question ministers, in others I was a participant and in some I just sat and listened. I enjoyed the first day, especially, being with the leader and also the member for Hammond and involved in questioning the Premier, Treasurer and the minister for public sector management. I know the Treasurer in particular seems to enjoy the ongoing battle he has with the Leader of the Opposition.

A lot of emotions came out on that first day. We were far better controlled last week than we were 12 months ago. I commend the Treasurer on the fact that when he is asked a question he makes every effort to provide an answer. He has a good memory when it comes to information and he refers a little bit to the advisers sitting next to him, but the spontaneous answers he gives actually help the cause and he makes sure we have a quick succession of questions and the opportunity to ask a lot of questions. He is one of the ministers who does not require government questions to be asked, and that is a good thing.

However, I was frustrated, and it might be partly my confusion, I am not sure, because the budget process is a difficult one to fully understand, even after reading it a lot of times and memorising a lot of figures that come out of it. In questioning the minister for public sector management, I would have presumed that workers compensation issues as they relate to the public sector—and we had been advised that there is a potential cost in the vicinity of $400 million for these claims—but I was told that is not his job, that it is the responsibility of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Hon. Michael Wright). That is frustrating, but that is how the process works.

I refer to the budget that has been adopted and the questions that we asked the Treasurer. In previous budgets that I have reviewed he has talked about efficiency dividends within departments, which I think were along the lines of 0.25 per cent. Now we find that the budget quite clearly identifies that, across all departments, there is an expectation of achieving approximately $290 million in savings—$40 million in the 2008-09 financial year and then a reduction in financial support to each of the departments of, I think, $25 million in 2009-10; $75 million in 2010-11; and $150 million in 2011-12. I am all for public sector efficiency, there is no doubt about that. When government changes, we will be trying to enforce the fact that every dollar that is contributed by taxpayers to South Australia is spent in the most efficient manner, but it will be interesting to see how each department goes about it.

I know the Hon. Michelle Lensink, in preparing questions for her portfolio area (which I had the responsibility of asking), specifically posed that question, that for each of those forward estimate periods what type of measures was the minister considering in developing the savings required? I think that the minister said that they had to provide a preliminary report by a time line of September 2008. It will be an interesting challenge for all departments, there is no doubt about that.

I refer also to ICT savings and shared services. In questioning the Treasurer about this, he was very confident of the fact that ICT savings were on track. In questioning about shared services, though, when I asked the Minister for Finance (Hon. Michael Wright) a question about that, he was good enough to say that shared services is designed to create $25 million in savings but that, because there have been some delays and some slippages, they are unsure of the numbers. They have had to consult more extensively, it has taken a lot more work to determine what can take place, and that they have to reduce that a bit. He is unable to qualify exactly what those dollars are at this stage. Certainly it would be in the millions of dollars, so we have asked some questions about that.

Shared services is a big issue, and 2,500 people will be affected by it. In regional South Australia alone, 256 full-time equivalent positions were to be removed and taken to the CBD. The minister has said that the scope for that might be a little bit reduced. He was unable to determine exactly what that figure was, but let us hope that he is able to do that soon and can give some surety to those people. I have spoken many times about the fact that there is a frustration in relation to shared services even here. We who live in the regions realise how important each person who lives in our community is, especially when those people have the surety of government employment, the fact that they contribute in so many other ways to community groups and sporting associations and to the community in general. The loss of those people through having to transfer their role to Adelaide is a great frustration, so I am all for delaying it even more, just to give people a chance.

I refer to some of the issues identified in questions to the Treasurer about unfunded superannuation liabilities. I realise that with, I think, 98,000 people who are physically involved in the public sector and about 78,000 full-time equivalents, the superannuation liability would be enormous. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT